Print
Share
Add to MyMises
Subscribe

Konkin on Libertarian Strategy

Mises Daily by Murray N.=20 Rothbard | Posted on 4/6/2009 12:00:00 AM

[From Strategy of the New Libertarian Alliance, Number One, = May Day=20 1981, 3=E2=80=9311, a critique of the New Libertarian Manifesto = [NLM] by the=20 late agorist theoretician, Samuel Edward Konkin III (1947=E2=80=932004); = reprinted as=20 "The Anti-Party Mentality" in Libertarian Vanguard, = August=E2=80=93September=20 1981. Rothbard dated his submission November 10, 1980.]

=20

It is good to have the New = Libertarian=20 Manifesto (NLM) in more or less systematic form for assessment = and=20 criticism. Until now, the Konkinian vision has only been expressed in = scattered=20 pot shots at his opponents, often me.[1] It turns = out that Sam=20 Konkin's situation is in many ways like the Marxists. Just as the = Marxists are=20 far more cogent in their criticisms of existing society than in setting = forth=20 their vaporous and rather absurd vision of the communist future, so = Konkin is=20 far more coherent in his criticisms of the existing libertarian movement = than in=20 outlining his own positive agoric vision. This of course is not an = accident. For=20 one thing, it is far easier to discover flaws in existing institutions = than to=20 offer a cogent alternative, and secondly it is tactically more = comfortable to be=20 on the attack.

I. The Konkinian Alternative

In this particular case, Konkin is trying to cope with the challenge = I laid=20 down years ago to the antiparty libertarians: OK, what is your strategy = for the=20 victory of liberty? I believe Konkin's agorism to be a total failure, = but at=20 least he has tried, which is to his credit, and puts him in a class = ahead of his=20 antiparty confreres, who usually fall back on fasting, prayer, or each = one=20 finding ways to become a better and more peaceful person, none of which = even=20 begins to answer the problem of State power, and what to do about it. So = before=20 I comment on Konkin's criticisms of current libertarian institutions, I = would=20 like to take up his agoric alternative.

First, there is a fatal flaw which not only vitiates Konkin's agoric = strategy=20 but also permits him to evade the whole problem of organization (see = below).=20 This is Konkin's astonishing view that working for wages is somehow = nonmarket or=20 antilibertarian, and would disappear in a free society. Konkin claims to = be an=20 Austrian free-market economist, and how he can say that a voluntary sale = of=20 one's labor for money is somehow illegitimate or unlibertarian passeth=20 understanding. Furthermore, it is simply absurd for him to think that, = in the=20 free market of the future, wage labor will disappear. Independent = contracting,=20 as lovable as some might see it, is simply grossly uneconomic for = manufacturing=20 activity. The transaction costs would be far too high. It is absurd, for = example, to think of automobile manufacturing conducted by = self-employed,=20 independent contractors.

<= IMG=20 alt=3D"" = src=3D"http://mises.org/store/Assets/ProductImages/B543.jpg">

Furthermore, Konkin is clearly unfamiliar with the fact that the = emergence of=20 wage labor was an enormous boon for many thousands of poor workers and = saved=20 them from starvation. If there is no wage labor =E2=80=94 as there was = not in most=20 production before the Industrial Revolution =E2=80=94 then each worker = must have enough=20 money to purchase his own capital and tools. One of the great things = about the=20 emergence of the factory system and wage labor is that poor workers did = not have=20 to purchase their own capital equipment; this could be left to the = capitalists.=20 (Thus, see F.A. Hayek's brilliant introduction in his <= EM>Capitalism=20 and the Historians.)

Konkin's fallacious and unlibertarian rejection of wage labor, = however,=20 allows him to do several things. It allows him to present a wildly = optimistic=20 view of the potential scope of the black market. It also accounts for = his=20 curious neglect of the "white market," and his dismissal of it as = unimportant.=20 In point of fact, even though the black market is indeed important in = Russia,=20 Italy, etc., it is enormously dwarfed in importance by the legal, white = market.=20 So the Konkinian vision of black-market institutions growing, defending=20 themselves, and thus becoming the free-market anarchist society of the = future=20 collapses on this ground alone.

Note that black markets are concentrated either in service industries = or in=20 commodities which are both valuable and easily concealed: jewels, gold, = drugs,=20 candy bars, stockings, etc. This is all well and good, but it = still=20 does not solve the problem: who will make automobiles, steel, cement,=20 etc. How would they fare in the black market? The = answer is=20 that they don't fare at all, just as they don't fare in the independent=20 contracting agora.

The point is that these fatal gaps in the Konkinian vision are linked = together. By concentrating on such objects as marijuana as his paradigm = of the=20 agora =E2=80=94 rather than automobiles, steel, Wonder Bread, or = whatever =E2=80=94 Konkin is=20 able to neglect the overwhelming bulk of economic life and to = concentrate on=20 marginalia. Only by this sort of neglect can he even begin to postulate = a world=20 of independent contractors or a world of black markets.

And there is another vital point here too. Konkin's entire theory = speaks only=20 to the interests and concerns of the marginal classes who are = self-employed. The=20 great bulk of the people are full-time wage workers; they are people = with steady=20 jobs. Konkinism has nothing whatsoever to say to these people. To adopt = Konkin's=20 strategy, then, would on this ground alone, serve up a dead end for the=20 libertarian movement. We cannot win if there is no possibility of = speaking to=20 the concerns of the great bulk of wage earners in this and other = countries.

It is the same thing with tax rebellion, which presumably serves as = part of=20 the agoric strategy. For once again, it is far easier for someone who = doesn't=20 earn a wage to escape the reporting of his income. It is almost = impossible for=20 wage earners, whose taxes are of course deducted off the top by the = infamous=20 withholding tax. Once again, it is impossible to convert wage workers to = the=20 idea of nonpayment of taxes because they literally have no choice. = Konkin's airy=20 dismissal of taxation as being in some sense voluntary again ignores the = plight=20 of the wage earner.

I am afraid, indeed, that there is only one way to eliminate the = monstrous=20 withholding tax. Dare I speak its name? It is political action.

It is no accident, again, that the entire spectrum of the black = market=20 movement, from tax rebels to agoric theoreticians, are almost = exclusively=20 self-employed. To echo Konkin's distinction, black marketeers might well = benefit=20 themselves in the micro sense, but they have no relevance to the "macro" = struggle for liberty and against the State. Indeed, in a kind of reverse = invisible hand, they might even be counterproductive. It is possible = that the=20 Soviet black market, for example, is so productive that it keeps the = entire=20 monstrous Soviet regime afloat, and that without it the Soviet system = would=20 collapse. This does not mean, of course, that I scorn or oppose black = market=20 activities in Russia; it is just to reveal some of the unpleasant = features of=20 the real world.

There are other problems with the agoric concept. I tend to side with = Mr.=20 Pyro Egon in his dispute with Konkin; for the black market, if it = develops at=20 all, is going to develop on its own, and I see no role whatever for Mr. = Konkin=20 and the New Libertarian Alliance or the involvement of the Libertarian = Left.=20 Konkin speaks correctly of the division of labor. Well, nowhere does the = division of labor manifest itself more clearly than in who succeeds in=20 entrepreneurship. If the black market should develop, then the = successful=20 entrepreneurs are not going to be agoric theoreticians like Mr. Konkin = but=20 successful entrepreneurs period. What do they need with Konkin and his = group? I=20 suggest, nothing at all.

There is a hint in the NLM that libertarians would a priori = make=20 better entrepreneurs than anyone else because they are more trustworthy = and more=20 rational, but this piece of nonsense was exploded by hard experience a = long time=20 ago. Neither do the budding black marketeers need Mr. Konkin and his = colleagues=20 to cheer them on and free them of guilt. Again, experience has shown = that they=20 do fine on their own, and that urging them on to black market activities = is like=20 exhorting ducks to swim.

When we consider, then, the vital importance of wage work, black = markets are=20 already severely limited, and the agorist scenario for the ultimate = libertarian=20 goal falls apart. And then there is the final stage where black-market = agencies=20 use force to defend illegal transactions, tax rebels, etc. against the = State.=20 Although Konkin doesn't acknowledge it as such, this is violent = revolution, and=20 it is simply a historical truth without exception that no violent = revolution has=20 come close to succeeding in a democratic country with free elections. So = that=20 way is barred too. And it hasn't succeeded all that often even in a=20 dictatorship. The Soviet system has now been oppressing its citizens for = over=20 sixty years; and there has been a widespread black market all this time. = And yet=20 there is still the Gulag. Why hasn't the black market developed into a = Konkinian=20 agora or, even hinted at such?

No. Much as I love the market, I refuse to believe that when I engage = in a=20 regular market transaction (e.g., buying a sandwich) or a black-market = activity=20 (e.g., driving at 60 miles per hour) I advance one iota nearer the = libertarian=20 revolution. The black market is not going to be the path to liberty, and = libertarian theoreticians and activists have no function in that market. = I think=20 this is why the only real activity of Mr. Konkin and his colleagues is = confined=20 to annoying members of the Libertarian Party. This hectoring may be = bracing for=20 the soul of some party members, but it scarcely serves to satisfy the = lifelong=20 commitment the Konkinians have to the cause of liberty. No, agorism is a = dead=20 end, and, to use an old Stalinist term, is "objectively = counterrevolutionary."=20

II. The Problem of Organization

I turn now to Konkin's critique of the current libertarian movement, = in NLM=20 and other writings. There are three basic threads in this critique which = are=20 entirely distinct, but which Konkin generally confuses and conflates. = These are=20 (1) the problem of hierarchical organization, (2) the problem of the=20 "Kochtopus," and (3) the Libertarian Party. Generally, Konkin lumps them = all=20 together, and thereby confuses all these issues. We must unpack them. = Let us do=20 so by first assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is no = Libertarian=20 Party, and that there are simply other libertarian institutions, = organizations,=20 institutes, magazines, or whatever.

Would Konkin's complaints disappear if the LP collapsed? Clearly not. = For=20 there runs through his writings an attack, not only on hierarchical = organization=20 but on organization per se. He is against joint-stock companies because = they are=20 organized hierarchically, and seems to be against all other voluntary=20 organizations for similar reasons. He not only opposes wages, he also = wants only=20 individual alliances, and not organizations at all.

First, there is nothing either unlibertarian or unmarket about a = voluntary=20 organization, whether joint stock or any other. People organize because = they=20 believe they can accomplish things more effectively that way than = through=20 independent contracting or ad hoc alliances. And so they can. So,

they are not immoral or unlibertarian, and
they are the only way by which almost anything can be = accomplished,=20 whether it is making automobiles or setting up bridge or chess = tournaments.=20

Konkin's suggested floating affinity groups can accomplish very = little, and=20 that when only a handful of people are involved. But if more than a = handful wish=20 to cooperate on joint tasks, whether steel making or chess tournaments, = an=20 organization becomes necessary.

Organizations of course create problems, and it is really pointless = to go on=20 about them. If more than three or four people wish to engage in a joint = task,=20 then some people will override the wishes of others (e.g. should we = paint the=20 office blue or beige?), and there are bound to be power struggles, = faction=20 fights, and all the rest. Even corporations, which have to meet a = continuing=20 profit test, have these problems, and the difficulties are bound to = increase in=20 nonprofit organizations, where there is no instant profit-and-loss = feedback.=20

So organizations create problems; so what? So does life itself, or=20 friendships, romantic relationships, or whatever. Most people think the=20 drawbacks are worth it, and are more than compensated by the benefits of = working=20 for and achieving joint goals. But if not, they can always drop out and = not=20 belong to an organization; in a free society, they have that privilege. = And of=20 course, we are talking here about voluntary organizations.

I suspect Mr. Konkin and his colleagues don't like to join = organizations. So=20 be it. But those of us who wish to accomplish various goals will = continue to do=20 so. And it seems to me we are at least entitled to the acknowledgement = that=20 there is nothing in the slightest unlibertarian about organization, = hierarchy,=20 leaders and followers, etc., so long as these are done voluntarily. If = the=20 Konkinians fail to acknowledge this primordial libertarian point, then = their=20 libertarian bona fides would come into serious question.

III. The Problem of the "Kochtopus"

Konkin has also railed against the beneficence of Charles Koch, not = only for=20 being pro-LP, but also because he has tended to acquire a "monopoly" of = the=20 movement.

Still abstracting from the LP, let us begin by each one of us putting = ourselves in Koch's place. You, say, are a multimillionaire, and you get = converted to libertarianism. You're all excited about it, and you want = to do=20 something to advance the cause. Things being what they are, the main = thing you=20 can contribute is your money. What should you do? The trouble with = asking us to=20 make this act of imagination is that most of us can't conceive of = ourselves as=20 multimillionaires, and too many of us have absorbed the primitive = populist view=20 of millionaires as evil Fu Manchu characters bent on exploitation. But = let's=20 take the case of our multimillionaire convert. Would Konkin = really say=20 that he should do nothing, because this might create a "monopoly" of the = movement? Do we not want to convert multimillionaires? Do we=20 not think that money is important in advancing the movement? =

So it is surely grotesque to send our multimillionaire packing. = Obviously, we=20 should welcome his contributions to the cause and hope for as much as = possible.=20 OK, so you are a multimillionaire convert to libertarianism. To whom or = what=20 should you give your money? Now, this is a considerable responsibility, = and=20 since no one can be omniscient, our multimillionaire is bound to make = mistakes=20 along the way. But all we can ask of him =E2=80=94 or ourselves = =E2=80=94 is to do the best he=20 can, according to his knowledge.

The multimillionaire therefore deserves our approbation, our welcome = to the=20 cause. Instead, what he inevitably gets =E2=80=94 human nature being = what it is =E2=80=94 will=20 be complaints and attacks without cease. For if A, B, and C (people or=20 institutions) receive his largesse, this inevitably leaves D, E, and F = out in=20 the cold, and whether through envy and/or righteous indignation at the = wrong=20 path taken, D, E, and F will no doubt yell bloody murder.

To us poor folk it might seem absurd to say that the life of a=20 multimillionaire is hard and thankless, but it seems clear that this is = an=20 important point for us to remember.

But there is more to be said. The critics of the multimillionaire = might say,=20 OK, it's great that he's giving all that money to the cause, but why = does he=20 have to control everything? But here again, you are the = multimillionaire, and=20 you want to do the best you can for liberty with the money you give out. = Wouldn't you want to have control over how your own money is spent? Hell = yes.=20 You'd have to be an idiot not to, and also not care too much either = about money=20 or the libertarian cause. There are few multimillionaires who are = idiots.

But how about the Kochian "monopoly?" Here Mr. Konkin should have = fallen back=20 on his Austrian economics. Suppose that only one firm is producing = aluminum.=20 Should we start yelling at it for being a "monopoly," or should we hope = for=20 more firms to enter the industry? Clearly the latter, unless = the=20 "monopolist" is using the State to keep other competitors out, which of = course=20 Mr. Koch is not doing. Quite the contrary. Koch would be delighted to = find other=20 multimillionaires converted to liberty and giving money to the movement, = as=20 would we all. So that the answer to the problem of the Koch "monopoly" = is to=20 find a dozen more multimillionaire libertarians. It is grossly unfair = and=20 fallacious to put the blame on the monopolist for his situation.

I submit that Konkin has been egregiously unfair to Charles Koch. The = only=20 legitimate criticism of Koch is not the existence of the "Kochtopus" but = if the=20 said "Kochtopus" takes a wrong and misguided track. Within Konkin's = antiparty=20 perpsective, for example, it is perfectly legitimate for him to = criticize Koch's=20 tie-in with the Libertarian Party, but not the existence of Koch = largesse per=20 se.

In many of Konkin's writings, however, one has the impression that = simply the=20 receipt of a grant or the taking of a job with Koch is evil, or, indeed, = the=20 taking of any steady job whatsoever (pace, Konkin on wage = work).

But while there is nothing at all immoral or illegitimate about the = existence=20 of a Kochian monopoly in the movement, it does pose grave sociological = problems.=20 For if one man or organization constitutes or controls the entire = movement, then=20 any mistake of ideology, strategy, or tactics he or it may make will = have grave=20 consequences for the entire movement. If a small organization makes a = mistake,=20 however, the consequences are not so catastrophic. Here is a real = problem, which=20 it is impossible to see how to cure, short of finding a dozen more = people like=20 Koch. (Surely, Konkin's putative solution of Koch disappearing from the=20 libertarian scene is a "remedy" far worse than the disease.) The only = thing I=20 can think of is trying to persuade Koch to set up diverse and = "competing"=20 institutions in the movement, much as corporations often set up = competing profit=20 centers within their own organization. (To some extent this is already = being=20 done, as in the case of such an estimable institution as the Council for = a=20 Competitive Economy.)

IV. The Problem of the Libertarian Party

Much of the Konkinian critique of the LP has been conflated with = attacks on=20 organization and on "monopoly" per se, and I think I have shown that all = these=20 criticisms are either fallacious or miss the point =E2=80=94 the main = point being that=20 these institutions are voluntary and are worth the problems they = inevitably=20 have, at least to those who participate in them. None of these = institutions are=20 unlibertarian, and the difficulties they bring in their wake are the = problems of=20 life.

We turn to Konkin's b=C3=AAte noire, the Libertarian Party. = There are two=20 important questions to be resolved about the LP:

is it evil per se, and
assuming that it isn't, is it a legitimate or even necessary = strategy for=20 libertarians to adopt?

I am going to assume for the moment that a libertarian political = party (or=20 for that matter, other forms of political action, such as lobbying) are = not evil=20 per se. But if that is true, then all of Konkin's running arguments = about the=20 LP's hierarchical nature, its power struggles, faction fighting, etc. = are no=20 more than the problems inherent in all organizations whatever. And this = we have=20 already disposed of.

More important, I see no other conceivable strategy for the = achievement of=20 liberty than political action. Religious or philosophical conversion of = each man=20 and woman is simply not going to work; that strategy ignores the problem = of=20 power, the fact that millions of people have a vested interest in = statism and=20 are not likely to give it up. Violent revolution will not work in a = democratic=20 political system. Konkinian agorism is no answer, as I have shown above. =

Education in liberty is of course vital, but it is not enough; action = must=20 also be taken to roll back the State, specifically to repeal State laws, = like=20 price control or the withholding tax. Or even like marijuana laws. = Despite their=20 widespread nonenforcement, there are always some people who get cracked = down on,=20 especially if the police wish to frame them for other reasons. Tax = rebels are=20 admirable, but only in "micro" terms; the taxes are still there, and the = wage=20 earners pay them. Tax rebellion is not a strategy for victory. = Single-issue=20 lobbying groups (e.g. antidraft organizations, taxpayer organizations, = gold=20 standard groups, etc.) are fine and admirable, but they do not complete = the job,=20 for two basic reasons:

because they are single-issue, and therefore cannot educate anyone = in=20 libertarianism across the board, and
because they cannot do the vital job of repealing the statist = laws.=20

They can only urge the repeal of the draft, for example; = they can't=20 actually do the repealing. Why should we cut ourselves off from = this=20 necessary and vital step of doing the repealing? Of course if one = believes with=20 Bob LeFevre that it is = equally=20 immoral to repeal as to impose the draft, then the repeal of anything is = out of=20 the question. But I will shout hosannahs for any repeal of statism, and = do not=20 concern myself with the "coercion" of those who'd like to keep the draft = and are=20 deprived of it.

Before the existence of the LP, the only repealing could be done by = Democrats=20 and Republicans, and so libertarians engaged in this form of political = action=20 had to try to find the more libertarian, or rather, the less = antilibertarian,=20 candidate. Contrary to Konkin, there have been political = parties in the=20 past, especially the 18th and 19th centuries that, while not anarchist, = were=20 admirable forces for laissez-faire. They didn't smash the State (not = their=20 intention anyway), but they did accomplish an enormous amount for = liberty: they=20 ushered in the Industrial Revolution, and we are all in their debt. I = think of=20 the Democratic Party in the United States, the Liberals in England, the=20 Progressives in Germany, etc. Historically, classical-liberal political = parties=20 have accomplished far more for human liberty than any black markets. =

But empirically, of course, neither major party at this point is = worth a=20 damn, and so a Libertarian Party provides a welcome alternative, of = actually=20 permitting us to engage in libertarian political action.

A Libertarian Party presents many difficulties. For one thing, there = is the=20 constant temptation to substitute numbers of votes for profits as the = test of=20 success, and this means the dilution of principle to appeal to the = lowest common=20 denominator of voters. This temptation has been yielded to with great = enthusiasm=20 by the Clark campaign. But the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, = never more=20 so than in a libertarian political party. The LP needs continual = self-criticism=20 and, yes, Konkinian criticism as well.

Fortunately, it has an admirable platform; now a struggle must get = underway=20 to get the party's candidates to stick to that platform. The struggle = against=20 opportunism is not going to be easy, and it may not even be successful. = But the=20 LP is a valuable enough institution that the battle is worth it. Which = is why it=20 needs the Radical Caucus.

And why it needs libertarians who are educated in libertarian = principles and=20 are concerned to maintain them. One problem with this particular LP is = that in a=20 deep sense it was founded prematurely: before there were enough = activists around=20 to make it work and to educate newcomers. The LP grew like Topsy; as a = result,=20 very oddly for an ideological party, there are literally no institutions = within=20 the Party (except for the Radical Caucus) engaged in education or = discussion of=20 principles or political issues.

The LP is one of the strangest ideological parties in history; it is = an=20 ideological political party where most of its members display no = interest=20 whatever in either ideology or politics. Marxist groups generally don't = found=20 parties for a long time; first, they build "pre-party formations" which = gather=20 the strength and the knowledge to launch a regular party. We had no such = formation, and are suffering the consequences. But here the party is, = and we=20 have to make do with what we have.

So the Libertarian Party is vital if not necessary to repealing = statism. And=20 contrary to Konkin's suggested timetable of a millennium, a militant and = abolitionist LP in control of Congress could wipe out all the laws = overnight.=20 All that would be needed is the will. No other strategy for liberty can = work.=20 And yet, all this pales before the most important problem: Is a = Libertarian=20 Party evil per se? Is voting evil per se? My answer is = no.=20

The State is a Moloch that surrounds us, and it would be grotesque = and=20 literally impossible to function if we refused it our "sanction" across = the=20 board. I don't think I am committing aggression when I walk on a=20 government-owned and government-subsidized street, drive on a = government-owned=20 and subsidized highway, or fly on a government-regulated airline. It = would be=20 participating in aggression if I lobbied for these institutions to = continue. I=20 didn't ask for these institutions, dammit, and so don't consider myself=20 responsible if I am forced to use them.

In the same way, if the State, for reasons of its own, allows us a = periodic=20 choice between two or more masters, I don't believe we are aggressors if = we=20 participate in order to vote ourselves more kindly masters, or to vote = in people=20 who will abolish or repeal the oppression. In fact, I think that we owe = it to=20 our own liberty to use such opportunities to advance the cause.

Let's put it this way: Suppose we were slaves in the Old South, and = that for=20 some reason, each plantation had a system where the slaves were allowed = to=20 choose every four years between two alternative masters. Would it be = evil, and=20 sanctioning slavery, to participate in such a choice? Suppose one master = was a=20 monster who systematically tortured all the slaves, while the other one = was=20 kindly, enforced almost no work rules, freed one slave a year, or = whatever. It=20 would seem to me not only not aggression to vote for the kinder master = but=20 idiotic if we failed to do so. Of course, there might well be = circumstances =E2=80=94=20 say when both masters are similar =E2=80=94 where the slaves would be = better off not=20 voting in order to make a visible protest =E2=80=94 but this is a = tactical not a moral=20 consideration. Voting would not be evil but, in such a case, less = effective than=20 the protest.

But if it is morally licit and nonaggressive for slaves to vote for a = choice=20 of masters, in the same way it is licit for us to vote for what we = believe the=20 lesser of two or more evils, and still more beneficial to vote for an = avowedly=20 libertarian candidates.

Audio: $20 $15

Print: $30 $27

MP3 CD read by Jeff Riggenbach

And so there we have it. Konkinian strategy winds up being no = strategy at=20 all. Konkin cripples libertarian effectiveness by creating moral = problems where=20 none exist: by indicting as nonlibertarian or nonmarket a whole slew of=20 institutions necessary to the triumph of liberty: organization, = hierarchy, wage=20 work, granting of funds by libertarian millionaires, and a libertarian = political=20 party. Konkin is what used to be called a "wrecker"; let some = institution or=20 organization seem to be doing good work for liberty somewhere, and Sam = Konkin is=20 sure to be in there with a moral attack.

And yet, Konkin's writings are to be welcomed. Because we need a lot = more=20 polycentrism in the movement. Because he shakes up "Partyarchs" who tend = to fall=20 into unthinking complacency. And especially because he cares deeply = about=20 liberty and can read and write =E2=80=94 qualities which seem to be = going out of style=20 in the libertarian movement. At least we can count on Sam Konkin not to = join the=20 mindless cretins in the Clark TV commercials singing about "A New = Beginning,=20 Amer-i-ca." And that's worth a lot.

Murray N. Rothbard (1926=E2=80=931995) was dean of the Austrian = School. He was an=20 economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher. = See his article=20 archives. Comment on the blog.

From Strategy of the New Libertarian Alliance, Number One, = May Day=20 1981, 3=E2=80=9311, a critique of the New Libertarian Manifesto = [NLM] by the=20 late agorist theoretician, Samuel Edward Konkin III (1947=E2=80=932004); = reprinted as=20 "The Anti-Party Mentality" in Libertarian Vanguard, = August=E2=80=93September=20 1981. Rothbard dated his submission November 10, 1980.

You can subscribe to future articles by this author via this RSS=20 feed.

Notes

[1] One = of his=20 criticisms (NLM, page 5) is untrue as well as insulting. = Neither I nor=20 the Libertarian=20 Forum was ever in any sense "bought" or "bought out" by Charles = Koch.=20 The Libertarian Forum has never had a penny from outside = sources: since=20 its inception, it has been entirely self-financing. And while my = two-year leave=20 at the Cato Institute was enjoyable in many ways, I lost rather than = made money=20 in the deal.

You can receive the Mises Dailies in your inbox. = Go here to subscribe or=20 unsubscribe.

User-Contributed Tags: = Tag=20 this document!

What is 2 + 3? =20 (Sign in to turn off = the=20 captcha.)=20

Add a=20 Tag =20 (Ex: Human Action, Inflation)

Print
Share
Add to MyMises
Subscribe

Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Newsvine
StumbleUpon

Search

">Advance= d Search=20 =C2=BB=20

The = Bailout=20 Reader

Mises Daily Search

rss=20

About the Author

Murray N. = Rothbard=20

Murray N. Rothbard (1926=E2=80=931995) was dean of the Austrian = School. He was an=20 economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher. =

view = archives

Featured

=20

Money, = Banking and the=20 Federal Reserve

Author: Ludwig von Mises=20 Institute
$15.00
view = all=E2=80=A6=20

Mises Community

Software Models and = Austrian=20 Economics Sat, 08 Aug 2009 12:14:56 -0600 by Robert = Blumen=20
"Feser on Rothbard = as a=20 Philosopher," by Gerard Casey [Libertarian Papers, Vol. 1 (2009), Art. = No.=20 34] Sat, 08 Aug 2009 02:21:00 -0600 by Stephan = Kinsella=20
My Lucas = Critique=20 Fri, 07 Aug 2009 23:36:59 -0600 by Robert = Murphy=20
The Ten-Year = Stagnation=20 Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:38:32 -0600 by Jeffrey = Tucker=20
G.A. Cohen = Fri, 07=20 Aug 2009 14:20:30 -0600 by David Gordon =
Modern Austrian = History: A=20 Response to Pete (Part 1) Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:16:37 -0600 by = Joseph = Salerno=20
No Job Losses in=20 Government Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:12:15 -0600 by Jeffrey = Tucker=20

view all=E2=80=A6 mises blog = rss

M= y first=20 interview: Art is commitment and support for life 8/8/2009 = 4:18:00 PM=20 by rroop= str=20
Non-scarcity=20 of intellectual property 8/7/2009 4:55:00 AM by Solre= yus=20
I= f you=20 don't like it... 8/5/2009 11:54:00 PM by thedo= =20
= A View=20 from the Trenches, August 6th, 2009: "Not so fast!" 8/5/2009 = 8:52:00=20 PM by Tinc= ho=20 Sibileau
a=20 poem 8/5/2009 4:17:00 AM by Solre= yus=20
= A View=20 from the Trenches, August 5th, 2009: An interesting day = 8/4/2009=20 7:29:00 PM by Tinc= ho=20 Sibileau
= A View=20 from the Trenches, August 4th, 2009: "Updating the forecast" = 8/4/2009=20 7:55:00 AM by Tinc= ho=20 Sibileau
Ask=20 Not... 8/3/2009 3:53:00 PM by Futbo= lGuru=20
Obama=20 Proves Tax Cuts Stimulate Economy 8/3/2009 3:33:00 PM by Futbo= lGuru=20
Environmentalism=20 and the Austrian Response 8/2/2009 12:07:00 PM by roma= ntivist=20
M= ore=20 Thoughts on Categorizing Economic Schools 8/1/2009 5:08:00 PM = by zirag= t=20
E= ntrevista=20 6 agosto 2009 como artista pict=C3=B3rico 8/1/2009 2:36:00 PM = by rroop= str=20
Mises=20 Daily Editing Group Newsletter 2 7/31/2009 4:39:38 PM by natma= rcus=20
A=20 Teachable Moment 7/31/2009 10:20:00 AM by Futbo= lGuru=20
Econ= omics=20 in One Lesson=E7=BC=96=E6=A0=A1the proofreading plan for Chinese = translation 7/30/2009=20 9:54:00 PM by Dingd= ong=20 Pu
T= he=20 Importance of Fellow Travelers 7/30/2009 3:39:00 PM by zirag= t=20
= A View=20 from the Trenches, July 30th, 2009: "A quick summary of main = thoughts"=20 7/29/2009 10:26:00 PM by Tinc= ho=20 Sibileau
Jatropha=20 biofuel, Third World exploitation 7/29/2009 1:41:00 PM by Charl= es=20 Anthony
Econ= omics=20 in One Lesson=E6=A0=A1=E8=AF=91=E4=B9=8B24. The Assault on Saving = (4-1,2) 7/29/2009 3:31:00 AM=20 by Dingd= ong=20 Pu
= A View=20 from the Trenches, July 29th, 2009: "On systemic risk and savings" = 7/28/2009 11:19:00 PM by Tinc= ho=20 Sibileau

view all=E2=80=A6 user blogs = rss

Mises=20 Blog
User = Blogs
Forums

Valid = Casuistry:=20 Deriving Ought from Ought 8/7/2009 6:03:21 PM by Lilb= urne=20
How do = natural=20 rights theories cross the is/ought divide? 8/1/2009 8:20:29 PM = by Lilb= urne=20
Where do = people=20 get the idea that it is honorable to fight in a war? 7/20/2009 = 1:11:49=20 PM by Silen= tXtarian=20
Healthcare: = what's=20 wrong with it? 8/8/2009 2:03:28 AM by yoshi= mura=20
Ed = Herman and Noam=20 Chomsky's Propaganda Model 8/8/2009 3:02:21 PM by VanD= oodah=20
Ideological=20 "evolution" among libertarians 8/7/2009 3:19:17 PM by ivanf= oofoo=20
Propaganda for = the=20 State 8/8/2009 1:38:07 PM by Laugh= ing=20 Man
Which = behemoth=20 book should I start with? Human Action or Man, Economy and State?=20 8/7/2009 10:31:56 PM by McDuf= fie=20
non-US = central=20 banks 8/3/2009 5:05:55 AM by libe= rtyman=20
Leninists?=20 8/4/2009 3:30:39 PM by E. = R.=20 Olovetto
Mises is = Spreading 8/8/2009 11:13:04 AM by Scott= =20 Jefferies
Fallacy = of the=20 Money Multiplier & The Three Multiplier Revelations of = Economics=20 8/8/2009 9:19:04 AM by MrLi= berty=20
Question = on Human=20 Action, Chapter XX, Page 557. 8/8/2009 12:33:28 PM by Peter= Van=20 Wieren
Fractional = Reserve=20 Banking 7/28/2009 7:54:59 PM by adam = knott
Property = rights=20 are an initiation of force? 8/7/2009 10:43:14 AM by Fried= =20 Egg
Antitrust: I need = a good retort to a stupid, stupid comment... 8/7/2009 11:42:22 = AM by=20 McDuf= fie=20
osman = kadri koca=20 'economist' 8/8/2009 6:00:41 AM by osma= nkadrikoca=20
Is it = even=20 possible for savings in China to cause a bubble here 7/24/2009 = 9:45:31=20 AM by inqu= isitiveteenager=20
Actual = Logical=20 Proof of Natural Law 8/5/2009 6:56:04 AM by Aman= ojack=20
Can You = Define=20 Natural Rights as a Meaningful Concept? 8/7/2009 4:06:58 PM by = Aman= ojack=20

view all=E2=80=A6=20 forums=20 rss

Literature

rss=20

Feser = on=20 Rothbard as a Philosopher by Gerard N. Casey
= Reply=20 to Matt Mortellaro on "Block=E2=80=99s Paradox": Causation, = Responsibility,=20 Libertarian Law, Entrapment, Threats and Blackmail by Walter=20 Block
Gold, = the Golden=20 Rule, and Government: Civil Society and the End of the State = by D. G.=20 White
History of = American=20 Socialisms by John Humphrey Noyes
The Freeman 1999 = by=20 Foundation for Economic Education
The Freeman 1997 = by=20 Foundation for Economic Education
The Freeman 1996 = by=20 Foundation for Economic Education
Pro= perty,=20 Freedom, and Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe by = J=C3=B6rg=20 Guido H=C3=BClsmann
The Freeman 1995 = by=20 Foundation for Economic Education
The Freeman 1986 = by=20 Foundation for Economic Education
The Freeman 1985 = by=20 Foundation for Economic Education
The Libertarian = Review December=20 1980 by Libertarian Review

view all=E2=80=A6

Upcoming Events

rss=20

San Francisco, California, = Intercontinental Hotel August 29, 2009
= =20
Dealing with Economic Depression (Mises Circle sponsored by Mark = L. Hart=20 III)
Seattle, Washington=20 September 12, 2009
=20
The Greatest Depression? (Mises Circle, sponsored by James M.=20 Wolfe)
Greenville, South = Carolina=20 October 3, 2009
=20
Depression, Monetary Destruction, and the Path to Sound Money = (Mises=20 Circle sponsored by Atlantic Bullion and Coin, and Professional = Planning of=20 Easley LLC)
Salamanca, Spain = October=20 21-24, 2009
=20
The Birthplace of Economic Theory: A Trip to Salamanca,=20 Spain

view=20 all=E2=80=A6

Ludwig von Mises Institute

Konkin on Libertarian Strategy

I. The Konkinian Alternative

II. The Problem of Organization

III. The Problem of the "Kochtopus"

IV. The Problem of the Libertarian Party

Notes

User-Contributed Tags: = Tag=20 this document!

Search

The = Bailout=20 Reader

Mises Daily Search

About the Author

Murray N. = Rothbard=20

Related

Featured

Money, = Banking and the=20 Federal Reserve

Mises Community

Literature

Upcoming Events

San Francisco, California, = Intercontinental Hotel August 29, 2009

Dealing with Economic Depression (Mises Circle sponsored by Mark = L. Hart=20 III)

Seattle, Washington=20 September 12, 2009

The Greatest Depression? (Mises Circle, sponsored by James M.=20 Wolfe)

Greenville, South = Carolina=20 October 3, 2009

Depression, Monetary Destruction, and the Path to Sound Money = (Mises=20 Circle sponsored by Atlantic Bullion and Coin, and Professional = Planning of=20 Easley LLC)

Salamanca, Spain = October=20 21-24, 2009

The Birthplace of Economic Theory: A Trip to Salamanca,=20 Spain

The Quotable = Mises